A Cuban man detained by US immigration authorities for nearly six months must be released immediately, a federal court in Kentucky ruled on Tuesday. The court found that officials had failed to follow the required legal process before keeping him in custody, violating his constitutional right to due process.The ruling available on Justia, concerns Damichel Jesus Viamontes Castellano, who was arrested by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers on May 19. He had earlier been taken into custody by US Border Patrol agents in Texas in 2022 but was allowed to remain outside detention while his immigration case proceeded.Castellano has since been held at the Oldham County Detention Center in La Grange, Kentucky. His immigration case took another turn on July 28, when an immigration judge directed that he be removed to Cuba. However, he challenged that decision, and his appeal is still being considered by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA).The pending appeal was important to the court’s decision because the removal order had not yet become administratively final. The judge also noted that both sides agreed that Castellano’s detention fell under Section 1226(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. This provision allows immigration authorities to hold a person while deciding whether they should be removed from the country.Castellano has family and business connections in Kentucky. He is the father of a child born in Louisville in 2024 who is a US citizen. His mother is also a lawful permanent resident and has an approved family petition filed on his behalf. He runs an active Kentucky business, as its sole organiser and registered agent.According to the court, officials had not properly assessed whether he needed to remain in custody or informed him of the procedure available to challenge that decision.
How ICE brought Castellano back into custody
Castellano first came to the attention of US immigration authorities in 2022, when Border Patrol agents arrested him in Texas. He was issued a notice to appear in immigration proceedings and subsequently released on his own recognisance.ICE revisited his case in May. Officers found that he had earlier received the immigration notice and had faced charges of DUI and reckless driving in February 2025. These charges prompted the agency to plan a targeted operation to take him into custody.ICE arrested him on May 19 and withdrew the release granted to him in 2022. Officials issued several immigration documents, including a warrant of arrest, but did not give him Form I-286, the notice used to communicate an initial custody decision.That missing document became central to the court proceedings. It allows a detained person to understand the government’s decision and seek a review by an immigration judge, including a hearing to request release on bond.The court found no record showing that ICE had considered Castellano’s individual circumstances before deciding to detain him. Under the applicable rules, officers must examine whether a person is likely to attend future immigration hearings and whether their release would create a safety risk.The judge also found that the government had not established that Castellano received the required information about his detention or how he could challenge it.
Why court rejected government’s argument
The government maintained that Castellano should have approached the immigration court himself to seek a fresh decision on his custody. Its lawyers argued that he could have filed a request for a bond hearing rather than approaching the federal court directly.Castellano argued that immigration officials had failed to complete the initial steps required by their own rules and could not shift the responsibility to him after leaving those steps unfinished.The federal judge accepted this argument. The court found that the authorities had not carried out the initial custody review or provided the necessary notice. It therefore declined to make Castellano complete another administrative process before considering his challenge.The judge also considered the time he had already spent in custody. By the time he approached the court, he had remained detained for more than 120 days without an independent judicial examination of the decision to keep him there.The ruling further addressed the responsibility of proving whether detention was necessary. The government wanted the detained person to demonstrate that they were neither a danger to the community nor likely to flee.The court disagreed with this approach. It held that the government must establish through clear and convincing evidence that a person presents a danger or flight risk during a bond hearing under Section 1226(a).In explaining its position, the judge pointed to the difficulties faced by people in immigration detention. They may struggle to collect documents and evidence, understand complicated immigration procedures or obtain legal assistance. The court said these difficulties made it important for the government to justify continued detention.It also considered Castellano’s earlier release. ICE had allowed him to remain outside custody after his 2022 arrest but later decided to detain him again. The court found that the government had not shown why keeping him confined without the required review was justified.
ICE directed to release him immediately
The judge concluded that the failure to assess Castellano’s case individually and inform him of his right to challenge detention had deprived him of due process under the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution.The court also considered the impact of detention on personal freedom and the government’s reasons for holding him. It found that immigration authorities had not established a sufficient basis for continuing his confinement without following the prescribed safeguards.It consequently granted his petition for a writ of habeas corpus, along with his request to expedite the proceedings.The ruling also places conditions on any attempt to detain him again. Unless circumstances have materially changed, officials must first provide him with a bond hearing under Section 1226(a).
